Talk:Abbey Road/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) *** Abbey Road is the eleventh studio album released by the English rock band the Beatles.
 * 9) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 10) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 11) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 12) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 13) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 14) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 16) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 17) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 18) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 19) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 20) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 21) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 22) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 23) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (NFC with a valid FUR) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license) (PD)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article :
 * "It is their last recorded album, although Let It Be was the last album released before the band's dissolution in 1970." (it’s not clear. Which one is the last Abbey Road or Let It Be? )
 * That's a can of worms alright! To keep it simple I have stated that Abbey Road was the last album the group started recording (22 February 1969), but Let It Be was the last one to be finished (cf. MacDonald p. 322 noting that the backing track to "I Me Mine" was recorded on 4 January 1970). Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Although it was an immediate commercial success, it received mixed reviews from music critics who found its music inauthentic and criticized the production's artificial effects." (or "Although it was an immediate commercial success, the album received mixed reviews because the critics found its music inauthentic and also criticized it’s artificial effects."?)
 * I've split this into two sentences. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Since its initial reception, however the album has been viewed by many critics as the Beatles' greatest work and is ranked by several publications as one of the greatest albums of all time." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? I think a comma is missing after however. Can you use active voice for "has been viewed by many critics" and "is ranked by several publications"?)
 * Changed to "By contrast, critics today view the album as one of the Beatles' best and rank it as one of the greatest albums of all time" Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The album's cover … " (better "The cover of the album …")
 * Do you mean "The album's cover" is better than "The cover of the album" (which matches your suggestion of passive voice above). It appears to already read as such. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you want to link "zebra crossing" in the lead? It’s pretty common.
 * In the UK, perhaps, but in the US (where the album was very successful), they call this a crosswalk. This is a British album by a British band, so we use British English, but we can't assume all Americans instantly know what a zebra crossing is. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you want to clearly differentiate between the contemporary and the retrospective reception in the third paragraph of the lead?
 * Now it's been copyedited down to less space, I think it's less of an issue. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence "At one point, according to Beatles author Ian MacDonald, after McCartney declined to attend a recording session due to an acrimonious argument, Lennon visited his house, climbed over the garden wall, verbally assaulted him and smashed a picture he had previously given McCartney." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow. ("acrimonious argument" or simply argument? Argument with Lennon? It’s not clear. Can you a bit neutralize it? acrimonious, assaulted, smashed, bitter are too colourful or is it the position of the source?)
 * I've chopped down this sentence a lot. It's too much information (the assault is mentioned in MacDonald but only as a footnote). Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence "Halfway through recording, at the end of June, Lennon and Ono were involved in a car accident, and after a doctor had advised Ono to stay in bed, one was installed in the studio so she could supervise the recording process." can be more clear.
 * See above Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Thus, though the bulk of Let It Be was recorded prior to Abbey Road, the latter was released first, and Abbey Road was the last album properly started by the Beatles before they disbanded." (Can you make it more clear?)
 * Reworded this. It was quite waffly. MacDonald p322 specifies clearly that the 4 January 1970 date was to clean up work on the January 1969 material. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence "Lennon was on hiatus from the group and working with the Plastic Ono Band during the September 1969 lead-up to Abbey Road's release, because the group had rejected his song "Cold Turkey"[16] which was effectively the first official sign of the Beatles' impending dissolution." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
 * Agreed. I've removed the sentence about "the first official sign of the Beatles' impending dissolution" because received wisdom as documented by sources is that following the rooftop concert, the general public had no real idea that a split was imminent and hence why the Daily Mirror piece on 10 April 1970 claiming McCartney had quit was major international news. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)